The logic doesn’t fly though. “Average Life Expectancy” was statistically 40s.
This does NOT mean most people died in their 40s.
It means a lot of children under the age of 5 years old died.
Human lifespan has ALWAYS BEEN around 80 years old.
We’re biologically NO DIFFERENT than humans in Aristotle and Plato’s time, or Ancient Egypt or “Cave men” or anytime inbetween through now.
Ancient Rome: [wikipedia]
“In Roman law, first marriages to brides aged 12 through 24 required the consent of the bride and her father; but, by the late antique period, Roman law permitted women over 25 to marry without parental consent.”
In short, parental consent was required for women to married up to the age of 24 years old.
This means, in ancient Rome, something akin to modern day adolescence was considered to last until about the age of 25.
Recent studies have shown puberty isn’t ‘over’ until around the age of 25.
We haven’t changed any.
Biologically, we’re the same. People with money lived through their 70s/80s/90s, whether Ancient Greece, 18th Century USA, wherever. They had good health care, good lifestyles.
What’s improved is that more humans have access to good care, but some people ALWAYS had good access to good care and their lifespans were consequently just as long.
My point is, there doesn’t appear to be THAT much difference of what is considered average/normal behavior at certain ages in most civilized countries for the span of human history.
You have exceptions, yes. Unique traditions of particular cultures.
But, generally speaking, it’s never been that much different anywhere you go.
Well, thanks to some early 1970s idea of “the planet is overpopulated and we should have less children” movement (which has become embedded in first-world consciousness), first-world birth rates have been going down tremendously.
It’s in our textbooks. it’s assumed to be true.
But maybe I have a contrary attitude. I think if people want to have kids, let them. Have 2, 10, 25 if they want to.
Each person born is an opportunity for something novel in the world.
I don’t worry about “over population”. The planet has plenty of resources and if it gets to be too much, well, then some of those members of “overpopulation” will just have to get clever and figure out an answer.
I don’t understand the ethics of “I’m responsible by not having children” but I hear it so much, there’s no point in fighting it.
Sorry. If someone rich or poor wants 15 kids, then they should have 15 kids. Their choice.
Our society provides for them? Good. Our society SHOULD provide for them.
The “low-quality” kids argument is a form of racism and classism and probably 12 other isms.
A poor woman has as much right to have kids as a rich woman does.
If they are ABUSIVE to their kids, THEN the state can come in to do something.
But if they’re fed, oiled, gassed, air in the tires, sent to school, properly put through the meat grinder until they’re adults, it doesn’t matter how many or few they have.
AND… if their schools and neighborhoods suck, guess what? THAT means “the system” needs fixing.
The system should serve the people, not the people serve the system.
Sometimes I hate living in the USA. Everything always comes down to “how much does it cost?”
Children aren’t dogs. That being said, existing laws take care of too many dogs in a house or improper living conditions in a house.
Children are not dogs. Were you a dog once, Grey? No.
I have no idea, Grey. I know people who are taken care of by the state. Do they take advantage? Sure. System’s busted but should we line up an execute people who are below a certain economic threshold?
You fix it then. What do you suggest?
They were living copied and taught books in the East though. Byzantium. That’s who taught the Muslim scholars too. The West though? Yeah. They went downhill for a lot of years. But that was only Europe.
You’re prioritizing the system over the people it’s supposed to support.
Then we run out of cookies. But not everybody wants a cookie from the cookie jar. Some want more cookies from the cookie jar. Some want the whole jar for themselves and keep it from those they decide are less deserving of cookies because they don’t fit the criteria for deserving of cookies.
Perhaps we should set up free abortion clinics in poor “undesirable” neighborhoods and encourage people to have less children through a program of re-education in order to cut off our net losses to the economy and the people who are left over will better be better managed by those in rich, desirable neighborhoods?
Oh wait. We did that already.
I’m pro-choice. But I find the type of agenda-based systems you’re talking about… practices which are ALREADY in place…. to be disturbing.
That’s how the system’s set up. America is an oligarchy. How it is. Cutting off a segment of the population does not boost the middle into the high, it turns the middle into the low and the gap widens further.
I’m not suggesting the answer is to put the burden on the rich.
I’m suggesting that you can’t take away the poor, nor a society’s obligation to take care of the poor, whether or not they are ethical or unethical about their involvement in our caretaking.
Fix the systems instead of scrambling for more cash.
Free sterilization programs would be one thing. The issue I’d have would be the marketing, placement of the sterilization centers, “strategic locating of facilities”, propaganda campaigns to encourage its use by the “undesirables” (I read “black and minority” when I see that word)… THAT’S when I’d have an issue.
If you place a sterilization clinic two blocks away from a high school in a community where the majority of families are on welfare, then you should ALSO place a sterilization clinic two blocks away from a high school in a community where the majority of families are rich, and also in communities where the majority of people are average working class people.
If you want people to voluntarily cull their own numbers, the option should be equally available and not marketed towards just one segment of the population, WHATEVER segmentation criteria one might use.
“especially those who are mostly responsible for populating our prison system. I am not speaking in terms or race, but rather class. Not economic class but social class.”
That’s where you lose me. Sorry. The first sentence and the first half of the second sentence were fine.
The rest of it just sounds very wrong.
Blond haired, blue eyed cheerleader, 19 years old from a well-to-do family, good strong genetic line, family depending on them to carry on the family gene pool decides to get a free sterilization after a professor told her about over population, should have equal, free, anonymous access as a black 19 year old mother of three living in a drug filled community where most of the men are ALREADY in prison.
If you’re gonna do it at all, you do it for all social classes.
The ACTUAL amount of women “having kids for the check” are not as common as conservative media presents, HOWEVER, it is true that “not marrying” is encouraged by the system.
Of those I know that are on assistance, the workers encourage non-marriage because you are penalized when married even thought you need it.
Also, – whether or not she CAN pay for it on her own, she shouldn’t have to.
Blond bombshell wants no kids after a drunken frat party the night before, stumbles in, signs up, and whammo, she’s done.
19 year old sole male heir to a family fortune gets dumped by his latest girlfriend, decides, “fuck it!”, and angrily goes in and gets his tubes cut for free, should have that option available as well.
Well then, now they’ve just created more autonomous beings who will go through the school system, flawed as it is, grow up if they survive, and they will be given whatever opportunities are available long after the EIC is gone.
There’s systems in place for that, although that system needs bolstering up. In the spectrum of child welfare, the US is more tolerant but in the welfare system in England and surrounding areas, they’re very quick to take away children, even if they haven’t been born yet.
I saw a somewhat dramatized (as all are) documentary on the subject a year or two ago and, even when taking the drama and hyperbole with a grain of salt nevertheless, points to there being an issue there of government being too fast in taking kids away. I’ll see if I can find it, although I’m not a fan of documentaries at all because of the pointedness of them.
In NJ, my mother WANTED to homeschool me in the 1980s but she was told repeatedly, “It’s for religious nutjobs and you won’t get permission” more or less. I watched great strides in homeschooling since then and I’m VERY impressed with it, although it has a long way to go.
Yet you STILL hear people, usually those who were pro-Common Core, against homeschooling, tying images of homeschooling to “religious nutjobs” just like they did to my mom in the 1980s.
Meanwhile, the conservatives, some of whom are, unfortunately, religious nutjobs (although not all) *do* support homeschooling, which just adds fuel to the fire.
The thing about it to me is: If there are BASIC minimum standards that are met in homeschooling, which they ARE, because it’s _required_, then the rest of the stuff they teach doesn’t matter.
The people who call it child abuse (and there are many and I’m friends with many who believe that), DON’T understand what _real_ child abuse is, because homeschooling is not child abuse if they are following educational standards and they’re not breaking any laws.
Yeah, I’ve gotten into a lot of spats about that issue, especially as I tend to be very liberal, but I’m not a democrat (nor republican) and I don’t believe in trying to control everybody on a federal or state level. Individuals and families need autonomy for a successful society to function, not a single-mindedness, EVEN IF that single-mindedness lined up perfectly with my own political beliefs.
An authoritarian imposed “good idea” can become a bad idea very quickly.